I can't see how SR was a gutsy film. I think it's a rehash of the 78 film.

After SR, nothing changed for me for Superman. I didn't feel anything new. I still got a kick out of the old films.

After watching MOS, I can't really watch the Reeve films, I notice alot more flaws with the Donner movies (even with the flaws MOS may have). I still don't think we've gotten that definitive Superman film but MOS gave me more than enough to chew on.

if they had just made an original movie, with a more modern world, it could have worked.

Routh was good as superman, as clark, he could have portrayed a good loner.. i mean, if you merged MOS with SR it would have been perfect - albeit similar to superman 2.

Start off with a nomad Clark, around the globe, not sure what to do, he uses his powers, he finds and has the fortress.

Decides to bridge the gap by donning the kryptonian uniform and helping the world.

A dormant craft that followed the signal sent from Kal El's pod - crash landed on earth a long time ago - is discovered, the occupants wake up and lex corp work with them to take down superman.

Anyways, i prefer MOS over SR, but i do wish MOS had fleshed out some moments - prehaps for each flash back scenes, have clark narrate as he speaks to lois - wold have shortened the flash back scene where he hid in cupboard, clark could easily tell that story, describing how it looked, with a brief montage anyways, i do have hopes for sequel... despite the rumours of a busy script again

Something that I hated SR for (along with other reasons) was a) they couldn't decide how much of the Reeve films was this film's backstory, thus creating problems and confusion, and b) they lied over what the film was about.

After the film was announced, Singer was on a radio show where he revealed that the Reeve films were being put into context; establishing Superman and that he had done heroic deeds before his disappearance. Those words would mean all four Superman films will in canon, but vague as in only the generalization of those films. For example, instead of everything that happened in Superman IV, maybe it would be only use the good parts like Superman becoming a global hero by removing the nukes. But later, they said Superman I & II was a vague history, which stayed until the film was being filmed where it was the only first film, and they stayed with the prequel comics they did. "Vague history" was already confusing already, and they should've been more clearer, but overall it was just confusing over what was canon and not in this film. To the point where when I or we had questions over how or what things happened or referenced, our explanations could only offer very little. The biggest was Lois and the if II was in canon; how long did the baby develop inside her womb until she realized she was pregnant? Isn't it funny that she realized that after she and Richard hooked up? Did she know already? Does she remember she and Superman having sex? Etc, etc, etc.

The other part of Singer and co. lying about the film. Here's what I mean: from the beginning until the release, we were told that SR was about Superman returning to a world that is different, much more dangerous, and above all like Lois, no longer needs him; shaping his story as someone trying to find his place in the world much like how he did from the beginning. Does that sound like the movie we got? Nope. SR was actually about Superman returning home, and while he is welcomed back with open arms by the world, he isn't by a very angry Lois, who wrote an article with that anger, and he is trying to find a place in HER world/life. What we were told was a lot more interesting versus what we got instead. So yeah, they lied to us.

P.S. given what was revealed over what SR2 was about, I'am glad MOS exists.

Next, I would rather watch Quest for Peace, arguably the worst Reeve
Superman movie, than Superman Returns.

I loved Reeve as Superman, saw him back in 78 and boy was that film something. I remember coming out of the cinema feeling like I could fly.
Yes, if you see them now, the special effects are a bit dated, but for its
time it was the epitome of awesomeness.

Reeve was charming, he had the look, he didn't take himself that seriously, and always ended with a smile to the audience as he flew off
into the horizon.

Superman returns was awful, it was a mopey Superman with an imitation of Reeve's look, but none of his charm. He moped, he looked sad, but didn't do anything about it.
Worst of all, his Superman was a moron, dumb enough to land on an whole continent which was mostly composed of THE ONE ****ING ELEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE THAT COULD KILL HIM !!!!

That wasn't Routh's fault, the wooden acting was, but that last bit was 100% the writers, did they have a total brain melt, who knows ?

Kevin Smith was 100% right, Superman returns was ****ing boring.

Anyway, enough about that. If you like Superman returns, fair enough,
everyone is entitled to their opinion. In fact I'm glad you did, because
then you got your money's worth. I came out of that film thinking that I got ripped off, and wanted my money back.

At the end of Ted, when Patrick Stewart is slagging off Routh and Superman
returns, he's taken the words right out of my head.

Okay, onto MOS ! Loved it. Because Snyder and co had the balls to change stuff, to make a Superman for the 21st century. Yeah, it was
a bit darker than Reeve, but at least they realized they had to make
it different - that Reeve/Donner was great in its time (and still great
for nostalgia value), but its not reflective of today's world.

In MOS, Superman drank beer, did the dishes, loved his mom, had chest hair, he frowned. He was a man of few words, he grunted when performing
heroic feats, and he threw punches (about ****ing time !), somebody
messes with his mom, and POW ! Cavill did a great job.

I came out of MOS with the same feeling I had as a little kid coming out
of Superman the movie.

I reckon Reeve was a slightly better Superman, (only just) but Cavill
was still a good Superman, and also in a better film, supported by a much better cast.

Russell Crowe was definitely a better Jor El. Great villains, great job by Shannon, and Antje Traue was hot and deadly at the same time.
Costner was a great Pa Kent, Diane Lane, best Ma Kent ever.
but the real surprise was how great Amy Adams was as Lois Lane
(Amy Adams is a terrific actress, but the writers need some credit for
that one, well played Goyer).

Anyway, I loved MOS, it may not be Reeve, but it was Superman for the 21st century, a darker more troubled time.

What I liked about Superman Returns was that it linked up with the Donner films. I’m one of the few that didn’t like the movie but liked that it belonged with the Donner films. I didn't like the reused dialogue and situations of story directly lifted/copied from Superman the Movie and that the movie didn’t completely tell a story in its own right. What irked me was the character depictions and tone of the movie. I didn’t like that Superman thought it was ok for leaving without saying good-bye. I didn’t like how Superman was pining for Lois without regard to the family unit. It looked like Kevin Spacey was walking through the part. I didn’t like how Superman barely said a word in his own film and when Brandon finally said something so many times he was impersonating Reeve. Oh and young Clark didn’t even say a word adding to quiet Clark. I didn’t like how Brando’s voiceovers were used very cynically. Superman’s costume looked cheap with rubber that looked like it could easily tear. Perry White was pretty heartless. Superman was a dick to his dog. There were to many close-ups of CG Superman’s face. There was an over use of a CG Superman to practical effects of him flying. Lois was too young, she must of had Jason when she was 16. The model train set destruction was to long and was overly distracting during the plane rescue sequence. Lex Luthor got it on with an old lady for her money, thanks for the imagery. Lex’s new land was lifeless and all rocky, who the hell would want that? I didn't like that Superman/Clark stalked Lois. I didn't like that Kryptonite have varying effects on Superman. What was with the stapler bit?

What I liked about Superman Returns was we finally got a bald Lex Luthor. I liked this version of Clark, he wasn’t dopey. The burrito scene was funny. I did enjoy the somber tone of the film.

In Man of Steel I think Jonathan Kent is a coward. When Superman finally came forward to the world it didn’t matter that they would fear him, because in the end he was their only hope, so Jonathan’s fear didn’t even matter in the end for the plot. Unless that will be addressed more in the sequel, oh wait the executives at Warner’s want their Batman, Superman fighting film, oh well. There's too much destruction in the film. You’d think Superman would have been more careful when fighting as to not destroying so much and by putting so many people in danger. At times Cavill’s acting seamed wooden. Lois said that relationships are doomed after the first kiss, who the heck says says that?!!

What I liked about Man of Steel is Lois knows about Clark’s secret. I like how tough she is. I like Faora a lot. The Superman suit looks great with the cape attachment and the size of the shield. I think it’s funny when Singer said making the shield bigger on Routh looked silly, and that the one they settled with was just right. I liked Lawrence Fisher as Perry. I love how the house of El represents hope.

Superman Returns was technically the better movie (by far, in fact). Superman Returns had the better script. Man of Steel had the better actors, but Superman Returns utilized its cast a hell of a lot better. Which movie is more faithful to Superman's character and mythos? Neither and both.

But personally I liked Man of Steel a lot better for one reason and one reason alone: when I walked out of the theater, I was excited to see where it'll go from there. With Returns I really had no real desire to see what's next. It wasn't because I disliked the film (that came with subsequent viewings, I liked it quite a bit the first time I saw it), but simply because there was nothing in its set-up that would interest me to see expanded and/or explored.

For all its many, tremendous faults, Man of Steel at least has some place to to go. It may be a better place, it may be a worse one, but it's somewhere!

Quote:

When Superman finally came forward to the world it didn’t matter that they would fear him, because in the end he was their only hope, so Jonathan’s fear didn’t even matter in the end for the plot.

Not that I'm crazy about Jon's portrayal in MoS myself, but his fear was pretty well-established out in the movie. The humans didn't end up fearing Superman, because they were being pummeled into the ground by an army of Kryptonians and he was literally the only weapon they had to defend themselves-- and even then, they didn't really side with him until the half-way mark. Up to the end of the Smallville battle, Superman was fighting alone.

Jonathan's point was Clark should hide until humanity would be ready to see how necessary he is and welcome him, which happened with the alien invasion. A little on the nose, I admit and... well, let's not mince words, pretty damn terrible writing all around, but the point was made. It was just a pretty ****** point to be made.

What I love about MOS is they made Clark/Kal the quintessential Regular Joe, which is very fitting for his place in the world today. There is nothing wrong with his bumbling alter ego and super boy scoutness of the Silver Age. I enjoy that stuff greatly, but that is of it's time. This Clark is a working man. He still has that altruism, but it isn't as blatant or OTT. I think some people still have that Silver Age mindset when it comes the character. There is nothing wrong with liking it or even preferring it, but some don't even try to accept it. I have this one acquaintance who is a comic book geek but all he does is read Silver Age and dismisses most newer stuff because he lumps it all into the category of "too dark and serious."

He doesn't have the knowledge to even know that it's not like that with every comic.

Superman Returns was technically the better movie (by far, in fact). Superman Returns had the better script. Man of Steel had the better actors, but Superman Returns utilized its cast a hell of a lot better. Which movie is more faithful to Superman's character and mythos? Neither and both.

But personally I liked Man of Steel a lot better for one reason and one reason alone: when I walked out of the theater, I was excited to see where it'll go from there. With Returns I really had no real desire to see what's next. It wasn't because I disliked the film (that came with subsequent viewings, I liked it quite a bit the first time I saw it), but simply because there was nothing in its set-up that would interest me to see expanded and/or explored.

For all its many, tremendous faults, Man of Steel at least has some place to to go. It may be a better place, it may be a worse one, but it's somewhere!

Not that I'm crazy about Jon's portrayal in MoS myself, but his fear was pretty well-established out in the movie. The humans didn't end up fearing Superman, because they were being pummeled into the ground by an army of Kryptonians and he was literally the only weapon they had to defend themselves-- and even then, they didn't really side with him until the half-way mark. Up to the end of the Smallville battle, Superman was fighting alone.

Jonathan's point was Clark should hide until humanity would be ready to see how necessary he is and welcome him, which happened with the alien invasion. A little on the nose, I admit and... well, let's not mince words, pretty damn terrible writing all around, but the point was made. It was just a pretty ****** point to be made.

Next, I would rather watch Quest for Peace, arguably the worst Reeve
Superman movie, than Superman Returns.

I loved Reeve as Superman, saw him back in 78 and boy was that film something. I remember coming out of the cinema feeling like I could fly.
Yes, if you see them now, the special effects are a bit dated, but for its
time it was the epitome of awesomeness.

Reeve was charming, he had the look, he didn't take himself that seriously, and always ended with a smile to the audience as he flew off
into the horizon.

Superman returns was awful, it was a mopey Superman with an imitation of Reeve's look, but none of his charm. He moped, he looked sad, but didn't do anything about it.
Worst of all, his Superman was a moron, dumb enough to land on an whole continent which was mostly composed of THE ONE ****ING ELEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE THAT COULD KILL HIM !!!!

That wasn't Routh's fault, the wooden acting was, but that last bit was 100% the writers, did they have a total brain melt, who knows ?

Kevin Smith was 100% right, Superman returns was ****ing boring.

Anyway, enough about that. If you like Superman returns, fair enough,
everyone is entitled to their opinion. In fact I'm glad you did, because
then you got your money's worth. I came out of that film thinking that I got ripped off, and wanted my money back.

At the end of Ted, when Patrick Stewart is slagging off Routh and Superman
returns, he's taken the words right out of my head.

Okay, onto MOS ! Loved it. Because Snyder and co had the balls to change stuff, to make a Superman for the 21st century. Yeah, it was
a bit darker than Reeve, but at least they realized they had to make
it different - that Reeve/Donner was great in its time (and still great
for nostalgia value), but its not reflective of today's world.

In MOS, Superman drank beer, did the dishes, loved his mom, had chest hair, he frowned. He was a man of few words, he grunted when performing
heroic feats, and he threw punches (about ****ing time !), somebody
messes with his mom, and POW ! Cavill did a great job.

I came out of MOS with the same feeling I had as a little kid coming out
of Superman the movie.

I reckon Reeve was a slightly better Superman, (only just) but Cavill
was still a good Superman, and also in a better film, supported by a much better cast.

Russell Crowe was definitely a better Jor El. Great villains, great job by Shannon, and Antje Traue was hot and deadly at the same time.
Costner was a great Pa Kent, Diane Lane, best Ma Kent ever.
but the real surprise was how great Amy Adams was as Lois Lane
(Amy Adams is a terrific actress, but the writers need some credit for
that one, well played Goyer).

Anyway, I loved MOS, it may not be Reeve, but it was Superman for the 21st century, a darker more troubled time.

Superman Returns...... not even close.

Good post.
speaking of darker times,here is someone else view about that from another forum.

It's Society not Superman that has changed...

Quote:

mellomoviereview-It's Society not Superman that has changed...

I had a moment of clarity as the alcoholics would say today. today In the 1940s and 1950s when Superman became mainstream in American Society, he was revered as a hero to look up to. This was a hero that stands for TRUTH, JUSTICE, and the AMERICAN WAY. Society had morals, values, and they were more modest. Good and Bad had a defined line and you didn't cross it, or you were bad. Parents wanted their kids to mimic George Reeves on screen.mainstream

In the 1960s-1970s Society began to slowly shift. American needed Superman after Vietnam and all of the shady politics of the Nixon-Ford era. People still looked at Superman as a beacon of hope, an ideal to strive for. Parents wanted their kid to mimic the qualities of Christopher Reeve. To stand up for what is right. "Don't worry Mr. President, I won't let you down." Always doing the right thing and inspiring hope into the hopeless.

In the 1980s-1990s society began to become less trusting of the Government, The Soviet threat, the increase in drug activity, and the cynical nature began to grow within people. This is when Batman started to grow in popularity. Batman is the antithesis of Superman. Batman stops criminals by scare tactics. He makes them fear the night. Criminals are so afraid to commit crimes in fear of Batman they just stop. Superman always tried to instill good into people. Superman is the light. He is supposed to set a good example and make criminals want to change on the inside. This is a lost concept today.

Finally, after the 9/11 attacks it would have been the perfect time to reinvent Superman. There was about a 7 year period from 2001-2008 where Patriotism was at an all time high. Spider-Man wrapped himself in the American flag in 2002 and stole the thunder. In 2006 the finally re-introduced Superman but they said the phrase "Does he stand for TRUTH, JUSTICE, and ALL THAT STUFF?" Leaving out the iconic phrase "And the AMERICAN WAY". This put a lot of traditional Superman fans off and patriotic people. After 2009 this era with the Tea Party vs. Obama we are going back into a cynical non-patriotic type society. A society that embraces BATMAN because of the cynical citizens and Iron Man because Tony Stark is narcissistic like most people in our Individualistic society.

Superheroes now a days are dark, gritty, or narcissistic in nature. A good wholesome country boy from Kansas that stands up for what is right is SO 1950s. Our generation wants a cynical/narcissist with cool gadgets and lots of technology. They can relate to that. Not a pure hearted, kind, do the right thing, treat people with respect kind of guy. The scene where the truck driver dumps a beer on top of Clark's head. He just walks away. When he is a kid getting bullied, he turns the other cheek. His father says "there is a part of me that wanted you to hit him, but what good would that have done?" No our country can't relate to that anymore. We NEED Superman more than any other Superhero (other than Spider-Man, he is sort of Marvel's version of Superman).

To read replies open below.It's Society not Superman that has changed...

Something that I hated SR for (along with other reasons) was a) they couldn't decide how much of the Reeve films was this film's backstory, thus creating problems and confusion, and b) they lied over what the film was about.

After the film was announced, Singer was on a radio show where he revealed that the Reeve films were being put into context; establishing Superman and that he had done heroic deeds before his disappearance. Those words would mean all four Superman films will in canon, but vague as in only the generalization of those films. For example, instead of everything that happened in Superman IV, maybe it would be only use the good parts like Superman becoming a global hero by removing the nukes. But later, they said Superman I & II was a vague history, which stayed until the film was being filmed where it was the only first film, and they stayed with the prequel comics they did. "Vague history" was already confusing already, and they should've been more clearer, but overall it was just confusing over what was canon and not in this film. To the point where when I or we had questions over how or what things happened or referenced, our explanations could only offer very little. The biggest was Lois and the if II was in canon; how long did the baby develop inside her womb until she realized she was pregnant? Isn't it funny that she realized that after she and Richard hooked up? Did she know already? Does she remember she and Superman having sex? Etc, etc, etc.

The other part of Singer and co. lying about the film. Here's what I mean: from the beginning until the release, we were told that SR was about Superman returning to a world that is different, much more dangerous, and above all like Lois, no longer needs him; shaping his story as someone trying to find his place in the world much like how he did from the beginning. Does that sound like the movie we got? Nope. SR was actually about Superman returning home, and while he is welcomed back with open arms by the world, he isn't by a very angry Lois, who wrote an article with that anger, and he is trying to find a place in HER world/life. What we were told was a lot more interesting versus what we got instead. So yeah, they lied to us.

P.S. given what was revealed over what SR2 was about, I'am glad MOS exists.

Oh yeah, I definitely hear ya on that.

I think that Singer and company not establishing and concrete timeline and history for the character shows that he really didn't want to touch anything that dealt with Superman's origins.

If anything, I feel like he was banking on the film being successful due to Superman's name alone and assuming that everyone, or mostly everyone had watched the Donner Films and were well versed with it.

And yeah, due to Singer not really establishing a concrete history for its core characters, it was hard to emphasize with the characters when it came to them contemplating on what they had lost, whether it be Superman and Lois's past relationship or how Lex felt wronged over Superman having placed him in jail. All of that was left up to the audience's imaginations.

And casting Kate Bosworth for a Lois that was supposed to be in her prime or even a little after that wasn't the best idea...at all.

Honestly, at the end of the day, Superman Returns didn't feel like a film where Superman was the main character. He was more or less just reacting to a lot of the stuff that happened in the film.

In some ways, it's more of a standalone story, where it has no past or future to go to. It's just a self-contained story.

Though I will say that in the same time, superman fans are in a way lucky that SR was made. Why? Well, it was because of Superman Returns that Warner Bros. was able to work out a deal with the Brando estate that allowed us to get the Richard Donner Cut of Superman 2, something that people thought that they would never see in their lifetime.

And if you were a fan of "Smallville", it allowed the show to bring in Lois and due to SR stalling the Superman franchise, it allowed the show to grow in ways where it wouldn't have been able to had we had a different or successful superman franchise going on at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeoRanger

The choice depends.

Superman Returns was technically the better movie (by far, in fact). Superman Returns had the better script. Man of Steel had the better actors, but Superman Returns utilized its cast a hell of a lot better. Which movie is more faithful to Superman's character and mythos? Neither and both.

I can't say that I really agree with that. I mean Superman Returns felt like Lois and Lex were its main characters, with superman being a background character in terms of presence and arcs/character developments.

I was more interested in the characters that we got and how they were used in MOS than what we saw in SR.

And I really didn't feel like Superman made that much of an progression as a character from the beginning of the film to the end of it like he did in MOS.

I just can't look at Brandon Routh in anything and think he portrayed Superman. But I see some of the other stuff that Cavill is in and you sit back a second and think "yep, that's the Superman alright...damn".

^I would have liked to see him get another chance at being Superman, as I thought he did pretty damn well in the role. He didnt have enough lines, but his facial expressions told what he was feeling in every scene and I think people dont realise this when they call his performance 'poor.' If anything his performance was under-stated, but if you look his face does tell you what he is feeling in any given scene.

^I would have liked to see him get another chance at being Superman, as I thought he did pretty damn well in the role. He didnt have enough lines, but his facial expressions told what he was feeling in every scene and I think people dont realise this when they call his performance 'poor.' If anything his performance was under-stated, but if you look his face does tell you what he is feeling in any given scene.

Cavill was pretty damn good in MOS though.

i hope Routh could do a new TV superman series. however, seeing how WB/DC trashing SR now, the hope is super slim.

I finally got to see MoS and I gotta be honest I think they are about equal in my eyes. I like both SR and MoS. I did wish to see Routh as Supes again without the attachment of the Donnerverse and I think with Cavill there is alot of potential for the future. Both movies have a odd mix of good and bad presented in different ways. As a Superman fan I love how Man of Steel's success hopefully means more Superman over the other guy...

I finally got to see MoS and I gotta be honest I think they are about equal in my eyes. I like both SR and MoS. I did wish to see Routh as Supes again without the attachment of the Donnerverse and I think with Cavill there is alot of potential for the future. Both movies have a odd mix of good and bad presented in different ways. As a Superman fan I love how Man of Steel's success hopefully means more Superman over the other guy...

Yep, a flaw of one seems to be something good about the other and vice-versa, put together they would probably make the perfect Superman movie. Though MOS sets up sequels much better than SR did, though I still love SR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sf2

and he is totally disappeared in the movie industry. even Tom Welling has some works and doing good. but i thin he is having a good life regardless.

Its a shame as he wasnt a bad actor by any means, and being a big guy, I am sure there are plenty of action roles out there for him. Since Scott Pilgrim the only thing I saw him involved with was the Dylan Dog movie but I never saw that in the end.

I finally got to see MoS and I gotta be honest I think they are about equal in my eyes. I like both SR and MoS. I did wish to see Routh as Supes again without the attachment of the Donnerverse and I think with Cavill there is alot of potential for the future. Both movies have a odd mix of good and bad presented in different ways. As a Superman fan I love how Man of Steel's success hopefully means more Superman over the other guy...

I heard from one person that they saw SR and MOS were on opposite ends of the spectrum: SR was substance over style, and MOS was style over substance. While I agree with that statement, I don't think MOS suffers from it compared to SR. MOS was fun and I wanted to see it more, and want to know what will happen next (moreso, because of Justice League), whereas with SR I got bored after viewing it for the second time; I only knew one way to go with SR2, but over time I didn't care anymore.

That statement; I want to happen concerning MOS2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

Its a shame as he wasnt a bad actor by any means, and being a big guy, I am sure there are plenty of action roles out there for him. Since Scott Pilgrim the only thing I saw him involved with was the Dylan Dog movie but I never saw that in the end.

I heard from one person that they saw SR and MOS were on opposite ends of the spectrum: SR was substance over style, and MOS was style over substance. While I agree with that statement, I don't think MOS suffers from it compared to SR. MOS was fun and I wanted to see it more, and want to know what will happen next (moreso, because of Justice League), whereas with SR I got bored after viewing it for the second time; I only knew one way to go with SR2, but over time I didn't care anymore.

That statement; I want to happen concerning MOS2.

i think that statement is totally bogus. how could you agree with it???
to me, SR's style is as prominent as MOS; however, SR is lack of substance, (the main event evolved around lois and lex only) while MOS is full of substance (telling the 2 fathers' hope on their son, the krypton, general Zod's perspective, clark's life fr baby, kid, teenage to adult, and lois's story)